Author
Topic: Genos styles Quality : some thoughts (Read 1880 times)

My purpose is not to polemize but as a newbee I try to understand. In one hand, the Genos Arranger is told as THE high end arranger.

In the other hand, when I look under the hood, mainly into the styles, then I’m very much astonished.

1 – Some few styles have one-bar patterns as Main variation !More styles have two-bar patterns. I let you imagine the repetitive music it produces.At least, 4-bar patterns should be the standard for high end arrangers.

2 – In general, the Genos styles are written in a ‘basic mode’ :

- The velocity is the same for the bass notes or for the chords.For the drums, the same key note has the same velocity, etc...- To avoid the repetitive patterns, we have no slight changes in the bars#4, for example for the drums or for the bass.- Timing : all the events are stucked to the beat or on a sub-beat.For example, for the piano chords, ALL the notes are set on 01:01:001. The same for the guitar chords, the drums, ...For sure, that way of writing the styles is not at all realistic.

It may be intentional. I don't doubt that experienced users will get an explanation about that.

Hi Luluc,Styles could have a lot more bars.Up to 32 bars for every Main.But in this case with too many bars(more than 4) the style would be sounded more like playing along with a midi song somehow.For a non specific song style which would use specific changes of the Mains that maybe work but not for a generic style whether we don't know if after a 4 bars playing the user will have to change the Main because he has to move from the Versus to the Chorus or use a 2 bar Bridge.

If we want to have a more "interesting" style we can use registrations to change stuff every 4 bars.(Create 2-3 similar styles with some changes among their parts so the "band" that plays along with us will still remain the same).For avoiding the audience to notice repetitive style parts we can constantly change chords,R+H voices and of course our playing which it has the melody.

If the style parts are unlocked we can make a one bar style to a four bar style and the go to step edit and change the volumes(and other stuff) of individual notes.

About the exact timing of the notes I cannot tell.I am pretty sure that our playing is never on the exact precise timing in milliseconds anyway and if all the "band"(style parts) are out of timing maybe it will not be that good result.

As far as I know for many decades now,audience is used to buy more music that is made on studios than live playing(which also is being "corrected" or even re-recorded on some parts on a studio).But if the style is unlocked we can also make little changes in the timing of some notes here and there on the Edit tab for a couple of style parts.

I know these things take time but....

I keep in mind that Preset styles have to be playable for every song that the user wants to play with them, for every chord change, even if the chord changes are immediate on each half beat.

All these you would like could be made by Yamaha itself of course and Yamaha could give those styles as "bonus" like the recent free styles. But then again some would probably say: "We all ready have those styles.Better give us new ones"

It is interesting . If I understand well, the present way the styles are written is mainly due to the fact that the styles have to be 'universal' for many uses : many songs, many chords, for each beat of a bar, ...

Styles with a lot of bars have some disadvantages. They are a lot of work to create They may not sound good when chords are being changed at 1 bar or even 1/2 bar intervals, which is the norm, fairly repetitive styles are more versatileIn reality the basic accompaniment by a band - drums, bass, pad - is quite repetitive. Once you add too many frills like riffs and phrases they get very song specific. Most styles already have variants that can be selected.

I think Yamaha styles are excellent, but styles have limitations in that they repeat the same bars over and over, that’s the limitation of the arranger keyboard, personally I think that a good player can make the listener concentrate on the melody line rather than the backing track.

At least we have a choice, if the styles get boring then we always have midi files where it’s easier to edit and push then chords and drums forward of the beat as you like and can add more interest to the backing track with counter melodies etc.

A lot of players don’t understand styles and play all the parts from the start of the song, better to start a song as light as possible, eg. Drums, bass, guitar strum then add more as the song progresses, you can edit all the style parts, volumes etc right in the style creator, I don’t think I have ever played any style without editing it before I am happy to use that style, ‘Style Magic’ is a good app for editing styles.

My purpose is not to polemize but as a newbee I try to understand. In one hand, the Genos Arranger is told as THE high end arranger.

In the other hand, when I look under the hood, mainly into the styles, then I’m very much astonished.

1 – Some few styles have one-bar patterns as Main variation !More styles have two-bar patterns. I let you imagine the repetitive music it produces.At least, 4-bar patterns should be the standard for high end arrangers.

2 – In general, the Genos styles are written in a ‘basic mode’ :

- The velocity is the same for the bass notes or for the chords.For the drums, the same key note has the same velocity, etc...- To avoid the repetitive patterns, we have no slight changes in the bars#4, for example for the drums or for the bass.- Timing : all the events are stucked to the beat or on a sub-beat.For example, for the piano chords, ALL the notes are set on 01:01:001. The same for the guitar chords, the drums, ...For sure, that way of writing the styles is not at all realistic.

It may be intentional. I don't doubt that experienced users will get an explanation about that.

Hi Luluc

I apologize for sounding harsh in my statements but I believe Genos has amazing potential that is not being utilized to the fullest.

I totally again with you. I believe that the preset styles could have been implemented with more attention to musicality. They are disappointing too repetitious. I know for a fact that the styles could sound spectacular if programmed with musicality and taste. All of the elements needed to do this are there in Genos. What is missing is variation of patterns. When creating a style, the programmers should reference great music.

I believe that a style should not have to be enhanced by the user in real time by what he does with , chord changes, Voices Right 1, 2, 3. Registrations changes etc. Genos is a monstrous keyboard that has the potential to create magic all by itself without the user having to make up for the repetitiveness by what he does with it.

The styles could be vastly improve by:

• Introducing subtle variations into the patterns so that they are slightly different from bar to bar or at least have some variations during the coarse of 4 to 8 bar sections. I think it's a sounds awful the way many pattern repeat exactly from bar to bar. That's not the way great music sounds. Even the slightest variations from bar to bar would make a world of difference.If done with common sense, variations would definitely not be a problem when changing chords. And slight variations would definitely not make the styles less "Universal".

Variations could take the form of:+Rhythmic (Slight changes in the rhythm of parts from bar to bar)+Melodic (Slight changes in note choices from bar to bar)+Augmentation (Adding a few notes to the basic pattern)+Deduction (Removing a few notes to the basic pattern)+Phrasing (long and short notes)+Dynamics (This can take many forms from ghost note to automation of expression for sustained sounds )

• Sections should always be a minimum of 4 bars.

• Certain channels should perhaps could have parts that only occur may once or twice during a 2 to 4 bar period.

• Humanization of timing could help a lot too. The whole science of the groove template has been in existence for decades. It is under utilized in Yamaha arranger keyboards.

========================================================My main gripe is the 1 bar pattern that repeats over and over with no variation. By the 3rd time you hear it, it sounds totally canned and fake. It doesn't have to be that way.========================================================

That being said there are many great styles and also just as many that should be improved by making them less repetitious.

Read through what I posted some time ago - you'll have to search for it, as I don't have the time right now.

I went through all the things that could and perhaps should be done to the styles, whilst still keeping them 'generic' enough to be usable by everyone. Some have been mentioned above! Conclusion? It would need a completely new style engine. Probably not likely to happen.

But the pattern lengths do annoy me. I was playing a rather old Technics on Monday. 8 bar style lengths! And my Roland organ has 8 bar styles with semi-random fills! You could write longer length styles but, as has been said, each one would take quite some time. Now multiply by a few hundred......

Logged

It's not what you play, it's not how you play. It's the fact that you're playing that counts.

According to the different posts received up today, I see there are two tendances :1 - Experienced users tend to say all present styles are OK, that is the way a real-time arranger works2 - Other users and new users ask for improvements. Some other users customize/humanise the styles before using them.

One thing is sure, the styles are 'griddy', meaning they look to have been written in a grid, as it was the way in the early times of MIDI.The question is whether this is satisfactory...

According to the different posts received up today, I see there are two tendances :1 - Experienced users tend to say all present styles are OK, that is the way a real-time arranger works2 - Other users and new users ask for improvements. Some other users customize/humanise the styles before using them.

One thing is sure, the styles are 'griddy', meaning they look to have been written in a grid, as it was the way in the early times of MIDI.The question is whether this is satisfactory...

It seems to me that the fundamental "nature" of arranger/workstation hardware and software is "griddy" simply because a computer is more in control than us "operators". Repeatable processes are at the heart of the matter. To humanize means (in my understanding) to arbitrarily VARY the results of playing the instrument. Can we have both concurrently? I'm not sure. I know in my experience, I usually overdub harmony/counter-melody by playing completely ad-lib on one or more channels, but highly skilled musicians will seldom be fooled when compared to a mostly live musician recording. (My output targets are usually "backing tracks", so some "griddy-ness" is necessary/appropriate for consistent vocalist renderings.)

According to the different posts received up today, I see there are two tendances :1 - Experienced users tend to say all present styles are OK, that is the way a real-time arranger works2 - Other users and new users ask for improvements. Some other users customize/humanise the styles before using them.

One thing is sure, the styles are 'griddy', meaning they look to have been written in a grid, as it was the way in the early times of MIDI.The question is whether this is satisfactory...

Unfortunately, that's how it is. I cannot see Yamaha changing it any time soon.A lot of people realize this and just enjoy what they have.

Here is my opinion for what it is worth.Styles are used to play songs.I will say it again, styles are used to play songs.Almost everyone who posts on here is looking for a style for a particular song.They like to find one that has an intro that is similar to the song they want to play.When they play the style they found, they normally have 4 variations to go with that style.And they use these variations throughout the song where needed.Some songs are very simplistic or specific to what the style should play.So some songs only need one variation to play the entire song.Bottom line, if you want to plat a certain song, look for a song specific style and use it for that song.

Canned intros can be fun, especially for newer players, but not everyone wants to sit and look while the keyboard plays for them. When you play with a small band you don't put on a recording of the intro then join in, you play it. I like intro 1, which mostly just counts you in. Mike

Sorry to have to disagree with the whole premise that the issue is that the Yamaha styles don’t sound very realistic. The styles that Yamaha provides with each keyboard are great tools that sadly very few players know how to use effectively while playing.

Many times I hear the users using only one or two patterns to play through a whole song. Then forget to put any of the breaks, rolls and/or stops that the song has in it. You know those pauses are part of the song too.

Yes, it would be best if Yamaha gave us styles with 8 measure parts in them but they have given us the ability to make as many 8 measure style parts as we need to play a song. Again, I can’t recall any end user ever doing that to a style that I have downloaded before. And by the way using a registration will not ever allow you to create this kind of improvement to the styles.

I have used and examined converted Korg styles before and found that a few of them contain 8 measures. I took some time to study them as to how they were created. I listened to how they actually sound when only playing them with a single “C” chord played for the 8 measures. Then tried to create a similar but different pattern. So has anyone tried to do this with one of the Yamaha styles?

I have also noticed that the Yamaha professional keyboard demonstrators only play half of any song they offer as an example. Why? Because only about 5 of the styles on your keyboard are made to play a song all the way through in such fashion.

In a resent posting of the CVP from last year, you can actually tell that the Yamaha rep is simply playing along with a midi file. Why, because there isn’t any style on the keyboard that can be used to do that song LIVE. Maybe more users should resort to creating their own midi play along files and get that more realistic feeling as the Yamaha pros do it.

To think Yamaha is going to provide hundreds of song specific styles on their keyboards, that is never going to happen. They are only offering you the end user a tool to use to be creative.

Hello,Not an Genos owner, but in general agree fully with Drake. Most styles are generic. And no matter of sound processing power of modern keyboards, those styles still sound like they did more than 20 years ago (except some voices make a difference). Most styles actually are that old.And here comes Drake's "idea" where I agree. Arranger keyboard is about making our own styles, or modifying old styles. Or what else can we do with arranger (in creative way)? But then, I must be critical too.. after 20 years or so, one would expect Yamaha would slowly start to offer something better in that department -not just replacing few voices and tempo in styles (at least that's my impression).

I understand what you mean about the arrangement of a song. I do like you do.

But I'm not sure we are speaking about the same topic :

- You speak about the way to use the styles in a song, to use breaks, fills, etc..., about specific styles for some songs...

- In my post, I speak about the MIDI data used to write the style. If needed, I invite you to look at the MIDI specification to understand how the styles are written with the MIDI data.That is, how a bass line for example, is converted in MIDI data which will be interpreted by a Yamaha arranger.

At present time, in the styles, when you have a bass whole note at time 1:01:000, the second one at 2:01:000, the 3rd at 3:01:000 and the fourth at 4:01:000 with a constant velocity, this is - by definition- unrealistic.Because no human bassist on earth will play like that, so perfectly in time and in velocity. Only a machine can do that, so we have to humanize the styles. That is the purpose of the post.

Perhaps in the real world hitting the note at the exact same time is not possible, I can assure I am dare sure trying to play that bass pattern the same exact way each time. To you the listener I have to be playing the note close enough to the exact same timing point to at least fool your ears or what I am playing will sound bad, incorrect and as a mistake.

In fact that is what I dislike about Classical music, nothing ever repeats and I can't tell when you are making a mistake. It is sort of like listening to so called poetry that has the same TIMING but none of the Words actually rhythm in the verse. That's not poetry in my book( it is just speech).